When Republicans don’t know squat about science, and proud of it

If you are even a teensy little bit into reason and rationality, then you are likely to wince every time you open a newspaper, surf the web or watch tv. The wince of the week definitely came from an interview that ABC’s George Stephanopoulos conducted with GOP House opposition leader John Boehner (see the story as recounted by Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum on their blog, and while you are it, pre-order their forthcoming book, Unscientific America).

The topic was global warming and what the Republican’s “plan” to deal with it might look like (don’t laugh! Not yet). I prepared myself for the usual denial mixed with narrow minded statements to the effect that we cannot afford to save the planet during a recession, and I was not disappointed. But the real kicker came when Stephanopoulos asked Boehner: “What is the Republican plan to deal with carbon emissions, which every major scientific organization has said is contributing to climate change?”

Here is the answer, in full: “George, the idea that carbon dioxide is a carcinogen that is harmful to our environment is almost comical. Every time we exhale, we exhale carbon dioxide. Every cow in the world, you know, when they do what they do, you’ve got more carbon dioxide.”

Ok, let us analyze this piece of politico-scientific flim-flammery on Boehner’s part. First, he is saying that the idea that carbon dioxide is a carcinogen is comical. It would be, if anyone had actually made that claim. Boehner is confusing cancer with global warming, an astounding example of non sequitur that he can quickly fix by checking out the definition of greenhouse gas on Wikipedia. (Don’t these people have science advisors?) Second, Boehner claims that farting cows emit carbon dioxide. They don’t, they produce methane (which is a greenhouse gas!). Again, Mr. Boehner, please at least check Wikipedia if you can’t bother with a more highbrow source, the entry is “methane.”

The interview then concludes with an unwitting bit of humor on Boehner’s part (at least, I think it was unwitting...), when he said to Stephanopoulos: “I think you’ll see a plan from us. Just like you’ve seen a plan from us on the stimulus bill and a better plan on the budget.” Hmm, you mean like the very thin budget without numbersyou came up with? Wanna go see what Wiki says about budgets? They typically include numbers.

This would be very funny if it weren’t for the fact that Boehner isn’t an irrelevant country bumpkin, he is the minority leader of a party that has been in control of the fate of this nation and of much of the world for the past eight years, a party that could regain control at any time because of the fickleness of the electorate and the vagaries of things like economies, wars and terrorist attacks.

There is absolutely no excuse for this level of ignorance by a prominent elected official. It is of course natural to disagree on political issues; it is even ok to be skeptical of a scientific consensus on the basis of one’s own honest understanding of the situation. But to say that cows discharge CO2 and that environmentalists claim that CO2 is a carcinogen is not just bizarre, it is a flagrant case of unethical and willful ignorance. Boehner should be ashamed of himself and resign his post in disgrace. Alas, that won’t happen until the cows come home. I mean, fart CO2.

This is pretty much an article of faith among the Faux News crowd, that it's all some sort of nutty conspiracy, like the gummint suppressing evidence UFO abductions or the reality of cold fusion.

I uses the term "faith" intentionally, as faith is willful blindness. By calling it a hoax, they simultaneously discount and dismiss any and all evidence, and shift the discussion to the supposed devious motivations and failings of those wanting to talk about the science.

I'm sure one of the reasons Newt Gingrich wasn't part of the R's presidential race in `08 was because he's actually one of those awful people who take what the scientists are saying seriously. Maybe at C-Span (.com) they still have the two hour debate between him and John Kerry in Feb of 2007 over what to do about the problem -- one might even say The Newt "won" the debate, but then he's a much better and more convincing debater than Kerry could ever hope to be.

Many democrats don't know squat about science either. Yes, humans can and do impact the environment. Duh. The amount that we impact the environment, however, is much debated among highly qualified scientists, many who believe human impact is grossly over-represented and natural global climate shift, irresponsibly ignored. I wish politics would leave the debates up to the scientists alone. If we are truly going to improve this world we need to appreciate what is actually happening. We need non-politicized facts. Our challange to stop harming the environment is real, but the success of doing this will greatly depend on our ability to prepare in environmentally sound ways for global changes that we do and DO NOT control. We are but a blip on the life span of the earth and we will no doubt have the challange of maintaining health and prosperity during times when the earth isn't quite cooperating. Its time to get a hold of our eco-narcissism and commit to small changes void of political pretentiousness. Bohener is just one more politician clouding the issues. A greener earth may depend on politicians from both sides stopping thier spew of garbage:)

Americans seem to have Republicans that would rather ignore global crises (as opposed to intelligent, logical republicans, of course. I don't mean to insult the entire group), and Australians have the 'Opposition' who, instead of proposing ideas, solutions, and/or advice for the current government, literally oppose everything they do. They don't say they could do it better, just that the current government is wrong, wrong, stupid and wrong.